Population

[DBT]

Flaws in studies aside, there is more than ample evidence to show that human activity has had a negative impact on the environment and its ecosystems, and that this is still happening. Which is a matter of both population numbers and consumption rate.

 

[bilby]

Flaws in studies aside, there is more than ample evidence to show that human activity has had a negative impact on the environment and its ecosystems, and that this is still happening. Which is a matter of both population numbers and consumption rate.

What criterion do you use to determine whether an effect is 'negative'?

What's the objective here? What would constitute a positive effect, and why?

 

[DBT]

Flaws in studies aside, there is more than ample evidence to show that human activity has had a negative impact on the environment and its ecosystems, and that this is still happening. Which is a matter of both population numbers and consumption rate.

What criterion do you use to determine whether an effect is 'negative'?

What's the objective here? What would constitute a positive effect, and why?

Obviously, assessing habitat and biodiversity loss, human impact on ecosystems, etc, is the goal:

Abstract
Environments on Earth are always changing, and living systems evolve within them. For most of their history, human beings did the same. But in the last two centuries, humans have become the planet’s dominant species, changing and often degrading Earth’s environments and living systems, including human cultures, in unprecedented ways. Contemporary worldviews that have severed ancient connections between people and the environments that shaped us – plus our consumption and population growth – deepened this degradation. Understanding, measuring, and managing today’s human environmental impacts – the most important consequence of which is the impoverishment of living systems – is humanity’s greatest challenge for the 21st century.

 

[Tigers!]

Flaws in studies aside, there is more than ample evidence to show that human activity has had a negative impact on the environment and its ecosystems, and that this is still happening. Which is a matter of both population numbers and consumption rate.

What criterion do you use to determine whether an effect is 'negative'?

What's the objective here? What would constitute a positive effect, and why?

Obviously, assessing habitat and biodiversity loss, human impact on ecosystems, etc, is the goal:

Abstract
Environments on Earth are always changing, and living systems evolve within them. For most of their history, human beings did the same. But in the last two centuries, humans have become the planet’s dominant species, changing and often degrading Earth’s environments and living systems, including human cultures, in unprecedented ways. Contemporary worldviews that have severed ancient connections between people and the environments that shaped us – plus our consumption and population growth – deepened this degradation. Understanding, measuring, and managing today’s human environmental impacts – the most important consequence of which is the impoverishment of living systems – is humanity’s greatest challenge for the 21st century.

How much negative impact have you had on the environment? Will that cause you to change your ways?

 

[skepticalbip]

Flaws in studies aside, there is more than ample evidence to show that human activity has had a negative impact on the environment and its ecosystems, and that this is still happening. Which is a matter of both population numbers and consumption rate.

What criterion do you use to determine whether an effect is 'negative'?

What's the objective here? What would constitute a positive effect, and why?

Obviously, assessing habitat and biodiversity loss, human impact on ecosystems, etc, is the goal:

Abstract
Environments on Earth are always changing, and living systems evolve within them. For most of their history, human beings did the same. But in the last two centuries, humans have become the planet’s dominant species, changing and often degrading Earth’s environments and living systems, including human cultures, in unprecedented ways. Contemporary worldviews that have severed ancient connections between people and the environments that shaped us – plus our consumption and population growth – deepened this degradation. Understanding, measuring, and managing today’s human environmental impacts – the most important consequence of which is the impoverishment of living systems – is humanity’s greatest challenge for the 21st century.

Have you ever really considered humanity's "proper place" in the world? So far you seem to just enjoy self flagellation for humans even existing... or is it that you don't think you are human like the rest of humanity? What level human impact on the environment would you find acceptable? Considering the "destruction" of natural vegetation required to build a house, should humans live in houses? Considering the gasses released by fire, should humans cook their food? Considering that animals have to die and vegetation ripped up, should humans even eat? Or to get to a little more and dive into comfort, should humans heat and/or cool their homes? etc. etc. Is there anything humans should be able to do (if so, what) since anything we do impacts the environment? What do you do for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, entertainment, etc. that you consider to be acceptable impacts on the environment?

 

[DBT]

Obviously, assessing habitat and biodiversity loss, human impact on ecosystems, etc, is the goal:

Abstract
Environments on Earth are always changing, and living systems evolve within them. For most of their history, human beings did the same. But in the last two centuries, humans have become the planet’s dominant species, changing and often degrading Earth’s environments and living systems, including human cultures, in unprecedented ways. Contemporary worldviews that have severed ancient connections between people and the environments that shaped us – plus our consumption and population growth – deepened this degradation. Understanding, measuring, and managing today’s human environmental impacts – the most important consequence of which is the impoverishment of living systems – is humanity’s greatest challenge for the 21st century.

Have you ever really considered humanity's "proper place" in the world? So far you seem to just enjoy self flagellation for humans even existing... or is it that you don't think you are human like the rest of humanity? What level human impact on the environment would you find acceptable? Considering the "destruction" of natural vegetation required to build a house, should humans live in houses? Considering the gasses released by fire, should humans cook their food? Considering that animals have to die and vegetation ripped up, should humans even eat? Or to get to a little more and dive into comfort, should humans heat and/or cool their homes? etc. etc. Is there anything humans should be able to do (if so, what) since anything we do impacts the environment? What do you do for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, entertainment, etc. that you consider to be acceptable impacts on the environment?

Pure Hyperbole....nobody is talking about self-flagellation, questioning human existence, kill the poor or any of the strawmen that have been waved around.

Again, the basics: science studies the impact, if any, of human activity on the environment, ecosystems, biodiversity, etc, and presents the findings.

That's all.

As a principle, it's not complicated, it's not controversial.

 

[bilby]

Flaws in studies aside, there is more than ample evidence to show that human activity has had a negative impact on the environment and its ecosystems, and that this is still happening. Which is a matter of both population numbers and consumption rate.

What criterion do you use to determine whether an effect is 'negative'?

What's the objective here? What would constitute a positive effect, and why?

Obviously, assessing habitat and biodiversity loss, human impact on ecosystems, etc, is the goal:

That may be obvious to you, but to me it sounds like handwavium.

Assessing what about habitat and biodiversity loss? An assessment needs a framework or protocol. What is that protocol? What kinds of, and degrees of, habitat loss are acceptable? What kinds and degrees of biodiversity loss?

Which human impacts on ecosystems are being assessed, and for what specifically? What's hiding in your 'etc'?

Abstract
Environments on Earth are always changing, and living systems evolve within them. For most of their history, human beings did the same.

and they still do.

But in the last two centuries, humans have become the planet’s dominant species, changing and often degrading Earth’s environments and living systems, including human cultures, in unprecedented ways.

Nice assertion. Where's the detail? What, exactly, is unprecedented here?

Contemporary worldviews that have severed ancient connections between people and the environments that shaped us – plus our consumption and population growth – deepened this degradation.

That sounds like a religious, not a scientific claim. Have 'ancient connections' been severed? How? And why is that bad, rather than neutral or good? For whom or what is it bad? Is it good for someone or something else, and how do you pick who should or shouldn't benefit or suffer?

Understanding, measuring, and managing today’s human environmental impacts – the most important consequence of which is the impoverishment of living systems – is humanity’s greatest challenge for the 21st century.

The cart is before the horse. Are living systems 'impoverished'? By what standard was this determined?

"Obviously" is not the appropriate word here. None of this is obvious; it's just assumed to be true without explanation, reason, or justification for assuming it.

 

[skepticalbip]

Obviously, assessing habitat and biodiversity loss, human impact on ecosystems, etc, is the goal:

Abstract
Environments on Earth are always changing, and living systems evolve within them. For most of their history, human beings did the same. But in the last two centuries, humans have become the planet’s dominant species, changing and often degrading Earth’s environments and living systems, including human cultures, in unprecedented ways. Contemporary worldviews that have severed ancient connections between people and the environments that shaped us – plus our consumption and population growth – deepened this degradation. Understanding, measuring, and managing today’s human environmental impacts – the most important consequence of which is the impoverishment of living systems – is humanity’s greatest challenge for the 21st century.

Have you ever really considered humanity's "proper place" in the world? So far you seem to just enjoy self flagellation for humans even existing... or is it that you don't think you are human like the rest of humanity? What level human impact on the environment would you find acceptable? Considering the "destruction" of natural vegetation required to build a house, should humans live in houses? Considering the gasses released by fire, should humans cook their food? Considering that animals have to die and vegetation ripped up, should humans even eat? Or to get to a little more and dive into comfort, should humans heat and/or cool their homes? etc. etc. Is there anything humans should be able to do (if so, what) since anything we do impacts the environment? What do you do for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, entertainment, etc. that you consider to be acceptable impacts on the environment?

Pure Hyperbole....nobody is talking about self-flagellation, questioning human existence, kill the poor or any of the strawmen that have been waved around.

It is a questioning of what the hell your preferences are, what you find acceptable (explicitly). All you have done so far is bemoan human impact on the environment. You have, as yet, not explained what you personally would consider to be acceptable human impact. As long as there are humans they will impact the environment just as as long as there are elephants they will impact the environment.

Again, the basics: science studies the impact, if any, of human activity on the environment, ecosystems, biodiversity, etc, and presents the findings.

Science can tell us how things are. Science does not and can not tell us what is "good" or "bad"... that is a matter of personal preferences. It is your personal preferences that I am questioning, not science.

 

[DBT]

Obviously, assessing habitat and biodiversity loss, human impact on ecosystems, etc, is the goal:

That may be obvious to you, but to me it sounds like handwavium.

Assessing what about habitat and biodiversity loss? An assessment needs a framework or protocol. What is that protocol? What kinds of, and degrees of, habitat loss are acceptable? What kinds and degrees of biodiversity loss?

Which human impacts on ecosystems are being assessed, and for what specifically? What's hiding in your 'etc'?

Abstract
Environments on Earth are always changing, and living systems evolve within them. For most of their history, human beings did the same.

and they still do.

But in the last two centuries, humans have become the planet’s dominant species, changing and often degrading Earth’s environments and living systems, including human cultures, in unprecedented ways.

Nice assertion. Where's the detail? What, exactly, is unprecedented here?

Contemporary worldviews that have severed ancient connections between people and the environments that shaped us – plus our consumption and population growth – deepened this degradation.

That sounds like a religious, not a scientific claim. Have 'ancient connections' been severed? How? And why is that bad, rather than neutral or good? For whom or what is it bad? Is it good for someone or something else, and how do you pick who should or shouldn't benefit or suffer?

Understanding, measuring, and managing today’s human environmental impacts – the most important consequence of which is the impoverishment of living systems – is humanity’s greatest challenge for the 21st century.

The cart is before the horse. Are living systems 'impoverished'? By what standard was this determined?

"Obviously" is not the appropriate word here. None of this is obvious; it's just assumed to be true without explanation, reason, or justification for assuming it.

Assessing the impact of human activity on the environment through science is "handwavium?"

I'd say not.

I'd say it's necessary for us as a species to determine what our activity is doing to the planet.

Which of course is being done, producing evidence to suggest that we need to change the way we do business. And do it quite smartly.

 

[DBT]

Pure Hyperbole....nobody is talking about self-flagellation, questioning human existence, kill the poor or any of the strawmen that have been waved around.

It is a questioning of what the hell your preferences are, what you find acceptable (explicitly). All you have done so far is bemoan human impact on the environment. You have, as yet, not explained what you personally would consider to be acceptable human impact. As long as there are humans they will impact the environment just as as long as there are elephants they will impact the environment.

Again, the basics: science studies the impact, if any, of human activity on the environment, ecosystems, biodiversity, etc, and presents the findings.

Science can tell us how things are. Science does not and can not tell us what is "good" or "bad"... that is a matter of personal preferences. It is your personal preferences that I am questioning, not science.

It doesn't take a whole lot of science to see that we have had a large impact on the environment through industrialization, consumerism and sheer numbers.
What we do about it is up to us. Whatever happens, we deal with the consequences of our decisions.

Does anyone believe human activity has not put ecosystems under stress, that we have not had an impact on the planet?

 

[skepticalbip]

It is a questioning of what the hell your preferences are, what you find acceptable (explicitly). All you have done so far is bemoan human impact on the environment. You have, as yet, not explained what you personally would consider to be acceptable human impact. As long as there are humans they will impact the environment just as as long as there are elephants they will impact the environment.

Science can tell us how things are. Science does not and can not tell us what is "good" or "bad"... that is a matter of personal preferences. It is your personal preferences that I am questioning, not science.

It doesn't take a whole lot of science to see that we have had a large impact on the environment through industrialization, consumerism and sheer numbers.
What we do about it is up to us. Whatever happens, we deal with the consequences of our decisions.

Does anyone believe human activity has not put ecosystems under stress, that we have not had an impact on the planet?

As I keep saying, all species have impact on the environment. Many species put "ecosystems under stress" (which is a human evaluation, not a natural law). Humans, being the most dominate species, have a dominate impact. You apparently don't consider humans to be a part of nature. Maybe that is why you find it impossible to decide what level of human impact on the environment is acceptable to you... or maybe you have a misanthropic view that any human impact on the environment is "evil".

 

[DBT]

It is a questioning of what the hell your preferences are, what you find acceptable (explicitly). All you have done so far is bemoan human impact on the environment. You have, as yet, not explained what you personally would consider to be acceptable human impact. As long as there are humans they will impact the environment just as as long as there are elephants they will impact the environment.

Science can tell us how things are. Science does not and can not tell us what is "good" or "bad"... that is a matter of personal preferences. It is your personal preferences that I am questioning, not science.

It doesn't take a whole lot of science to see that we have had a large impact on the environment through industrialization, consumerism and sheer numbers.
What we do about it is up to us. Whatever happens, we deal with the consequences of our decisions.

Does anyone believe human activity has not put ecosystems under stress, that we have not had an impact on the planet?

As I keep saying, all species have impact on the environment. Many species put "ecosystems under stress" (which is a human evaluation, not a natural law). Humans, being the most dominate species, have a dominate impact. You apparently don't consider humans to be a part of nature. Maybe that is why you find it impossible decide what human impact on environment is acceptable to you.

The issue is not about sustainable impact. Sustainable impact is a non issue. If our current activity was sustainable, there would be no problem and no need to alter or modify our economic activity, just business as usual.

 

[skepticalbip]

As I keep saying, all species have impact on the environment. Many species put "ecosystems under stress" (which is a human evaluation, not a natural law). Humans, being the most dominate species, have a dominate impact. You apparently don't consider humans to be a part of nature. Maybe that is why you find it impossible decide what human impact on environment is acceptable to you.

The issue is not about sustainable impact. Sustainable impact is a non issue. If our current activity was sustainable, there would be no problem and no need to alter or modify our economic activity, just business as usual.

I can make no sense of that. What is a "sustainable impact"? How is a "sustainable impact" identified? If a canal is dug (like the Panama or Erie canals), the local ecosystem is impacted. Is that an "unstainable impact" or a "sustainable impact"?

 

[DBT]

As I keep saying, all species have impact on the environment. Many species put "ecosystems under stress" (which is a human evaluation, not a natural law). Humans, being the most dominate species, have a dominate impact. You apparently don't consider humans to be a part of nature. Maybe that is why you find it impossible decide what human impact on environment is acceptable to you.

The issue is not about sustainable impact. Sustainable impact is a non issue. If our current activity was sustainable, there would be no problem and no need to alter or modify our economic activity, just business as usual.

I can make no sense of that. What is a "sustainable impact"? How is a "sustainable impact" identified? If a canal is dug (like the Panama or Erie canals), the local ecosystem is impacted. Is that an "unstainable impact" or a "sustainable impact"?

Isn't it the point of doing studies, measuring our impact on the environment, to determine whether our activity is sustainable or not?

 

[skepticalbip]

I can make no sense of that. What is a "sustainable impact"? How is a "sustainable impact" identified? If a canal is dug (like the Panama or Erie canals), the local ecosystem is impacted. Is that an "unstainable impact" or a "sustainable impact"?

Isn't it the point of doing studies, measuring our impact on the environment, to determine whether our activity is sustainable or not?

You didn't answer my question....

WTH does the phrase "sustainable impact" even mean?

 

[steve_bank]

I can make no sense of that. What is a "sustainable impact"? How is a "sustainable impact" identified? If a canal is dug (like the Panama or Erie canals), the local ecosystem is impacted. Is that an "unstainable impact" or a "sustainable impact"?

Isn't it the point of doing studies, measuring our impact on the environment, to determine whether our activity is sustainable or not?

You didn't answer my question....

WTH does the phrase "sustainable impact" even mean?

This is a case when one responds with 'If you have to ask the question you probably are not going to understand the answer.'

Do you really need an explanation? Water here in the USA is becoming a problem. Major agriculture in Ca is being affected, IOW our food supply. Can population and economies increase without limit as some seem to think?

In the 69s as a kid in the NYC area I remember pollution and smog with temperature inversions. Pollution trapped by a thermal boundary as cars keep putting out pollutants.

In LA the pollution was so bad visibility in the air was limited and peoples eyes and lungs were deteriorating.

 

[skepticalbip]

You didn't answer my question....

WTH does the phrase "sustainable impact" even mean?

This is a case when one responds with 'If you have to ask the question you probably are not going to understand the answer.'

Do you really need an explanation? Water here in the USA is becoming a problem. Major agriculture in Ca is being affected, IOW our food supply. Can population and economies increase without limit as some seem to think?

In the 69s as a kid in the NYC area I remember pollution and smog with temperature inversions. Pollution trapped by a thermal boundary as cars keep putting out pollutants.

In LA the pollution was so bad visibility in the air was limited and peoples eyes and lungs were deteriorating.

You missed my point. The term "sustainable impact" is one of those terms that have no specific meaning. It means whatever someone wants it to mean. The building of the Panama canal destroyed the local ecosystem. Extremist in the ecological community would decry the "unsustainable impact" on the local ecosystem since it will never recover.... moderate members of the ecological community would see it as a "sustainable impact" since it was only a "small" scar across an otherwise healthy Panamanian jungle. Phrases that have such fuzzy meaning are useless.

Someone using such a fuzzy phrase has to be asked what they mean exactly before it can be known what their point is.... that is if they actually have a point.

 

[DBT]

You didn't answer my question....

WTH does the phrase "sustainable impact" even mean?

This is a case when one responds with 'If you have to ask the question you probably are not going to understand the answer.'

Do you really need an explanation? Water here in the USA is becoming a problem. Major agriculture in Ca is being affected, IOW our food supply. Can population and economies increase without limit as some seem to think?

In the 69s as a kid in the NYC area I remember pollution and smog with temperature inversions. Pollution trapped by a thermal boundary as cars keep putting out pollutants.

In LA the pollution was so bad visibility in the air was limited and peoples eyes and lungs were deteriorating.

You missed my point. The term "sustainable impact" is one of those terms that have no specific meaning. It means whatever someone wants it to mean. The building of the Panama canal destroyed the local ecosystem. Extremist in the ecological community would decry the "unsustainable impact" on the local ecosystem since it will never recover.... moderate members of the ecological community would see it as a "sustainable impact" since it was only a "small" scar across an otherwise healthy Panamanian jungle. Phrases that have such fuzzy meaning are useless.

Someone using such a fuzzy phrase has to be asked what they mean exactly before it can be known what their point is.... that is if they actually have a point.

Doesn't 'sustainability' mean that whatever activity we are engaged in can be carried on indefinitely, that the impact we cause is not degrading our ecosystems, environment or causing undue suffering in the human population? That's how I see it.

 

[skepticalbip]

You missed my point. The term "sustainable impact" is one of those terms that have no specific meaning. It means whatever someone wants it to mean. The building of the Panama canal destroyed the local ecosystem. Extremist in the ecological community would decry the "unsustainable impact" on the local ecosystem since it will never recover.... moderate members of the ecological community would see it as a "sustainable impact" since it was only a "small" scar across an otherwise healthy Panamanian jungle. Phrases that have such fuzzy meaning are useless.

Someone using such a fuzzy phrase has to be asked what they mean exactly before it can be known what their point is.... that is if they actually have a point.

Doesn't 'sustainability' mean that whatever activity we are engaged in can be carried on indefinitely, that the impact we cause is not degrading our ecosystems, environment or causing undue suffering in the human population? That's how I see it.

So by your meaning of "sustainable impact" you would see no problem with clear cutting practices by timber companies as long as they continue the practice of clear cutting dispersed patches and replanting the cleared areas. Such a practice can be carried on indefinitely since the cut areas will be fully grown again by the time they work their way around the scheduled patch cutting policy?

How about the Panama canal example?

 

[DBT]

You missed my point. The term "sustainable impact" is one of those terms that have no specific meaning. It means whatever someone wants it to mean. The building of the Panama canal destroyed the local ecosystem. Extremist in the ecological community would decry the "unsustainable impact" on the local ecosystem since it will never recover.... moderate members of the ecological community would see it as a "sustainable impact" since it was only a "small" scar across an otherwise healthy Panamanian jungle. Phrases that have such fuzzy meaning are useless.

Someone using such a fuzzy phrase has to be asked what they mean exactly before it can be known what their point is.... that is if they actually have a point.

Doesn't 'sustainability' mean that whatever activity we are engaged in can be carried on indefinitely, that the impact we cause is not degrading our ecosystems, environment or causing undue suffering in the human population? That's how I see it.

So by your meaning of "sustainable impact" you would see no problem with clear cutting practices by timber companies as long as they continue the practice of clear cutting dispersed patches and replanting the cleared areas. Such a practice can be carried on indefinitely since the cut areas will be fully grown again by the time they work their way around the scheduled patch cutting policy?

How about the Panama canal example?

Your examples don't take into other factors into account, clear cutting destroys habitat, species loss, etc. It may be possible on a limited scale. Scale counts. Which is why 8 - 10 billion people acting in their own interest, indulging in high consumption, cars boats, air travel, with insufficient regard to their environment - clear felling, etc, most probably make a greater impact the planet than a population of 2 billion.